The Clown Car Loads for a Second Run

DemocratClownCar

2016 was the year that a megaton of TNT was tossed into the political process. Not only were there the rumors of the “rigging” of the process in the Democratic Party (unfounded since one candidate racked up FOUR MILLION VOTES more than the runner-up) but there was the shitshow that was the GOP primary. At one point during the primaries, 17 people were running from the Republican Party for the nomination. Only a scant two years later, it seems that we’ve learned nothing from the past as the clown car loads up for a second run, this time on the Democratic side.

The 2020 race began literally on Inauguration Day 2017. In arguably one of the earliest ever announcements of intent to run, Orange Foolius opened his 2020 reelection campaign THE DAY HE SAT DOWN IN THE WHITE HOUSE. No previous president had EVER taken this unfathomable step, simply because it is a ludicrous idea from the start (what is did was allow Orange Foolius and his sycophants in the “conservative” GOP the ability to worship their god – money and donations from billionaires). The Democrats haven’t done much better, however, they just simply waited until after the 2018 midterms – and the drubbing the Democrats handed to the “conservatives” of the GOP – before they put the makeup, clown shoes and squeaky horns into practice.

2020DemPresCandidates

More than 18 months prior to Election Day 2020, the Democratic Clown Car is loading up with buffoons, pretenders and a few contenders. As of today, 20 potential contenders from the Democratic Party have said they are tossing their hat in the ring, with Massachusetts Representative Seth Moulton becoming the latest candidate. This isn’t counting former Vice President Joe Biden, who is supposed to announce some time this week his intentions, or the ghastly specter of Hillary Clinton that keeps hovering in the background waiting for attention. By Memorial Day, it is possible that there could be maybe 25 candidates that have announced for the Democrats.

It has literally become comical watching the Democrats scramble to find footing in the race. What isn’t comical, however, is the pressure it puts on the voters to find a viable candidate. On CNN on Monday, FIVE of these candidates – Minnesota Senator Amy Klobuchar, Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren, Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, California Senator Kamala Harris and South Bend, IN, mayor Pete Buttigieg – will have hour-long “Town Hall” meetings that will “break them out of the crowd.” The reason that is in parenthesis is that the only reason they’re doing it is for 1) filling programming time on CNN, and 2) trying to get people to like them.

One of the things about politics is that there are USUALLY protocols that are set in place and for a good reason. Newcomers to any political faction – be it a political party or an elected body on a local, state or national level – usually start out in a what was derogatorily called the “back bench,” waiting their time and learning as they help to advance the party and their platform and positions. But, in the 21st century, that has been thrown out the window, first by the GOP and now by the Dems.

It is a complete waste of time to have anything beyond 10 candidates FOR ANYTHING, let alone leadership of the free world and one of the most prosperous countries on the planet. It is arguable that the GOP process in 2016, which didn’t allow people to coalesce around a candidate that was, you know, a functioning adult with an education beyond a five-year-old, contributed to who they eventually nominated. The 16-person GOP Clown Car allowed for the party to be usurped by a fascist fuck with massive personality disorders and a Twitter fix that constantly must be fed along with his bloated ego.

The same thing could very well happen to the Democrats come 2020. Without the ability to actually focus on a small group – let’s say five to six candidates – there may be either a candidate that isn’t qualified or an extremist to sneak through the cracks and earn the nomination. Then the Dems would become no better than the current “conservatives” who suckle at the teat of Orange Foolius – afraid to offend the person lest they lose their support and unable to operate because of the outlandishness of what the person wants to do.

At this point – and there is a LONG fucking way to go, people – these are the top three candidates that are the MOST VIABLE from the Democratic Party:

JoeBiden

Joe Biden – Has the gravitas of a statesman, can cooperate with the middle and some “conservatives” and regain the respect the country once had before the jackass that’s sitting in the chair now (and I’ll say this now…when he leaves, I can guaran-fucking-tee there’s not going to be the traditional letter than the preceding President leaves for his successor). Cons: his age, some of his past stances on subjects like prison reform, the Anita Hill case and corporate involvement in elections.

BernieSanders

Bernie Sanders – Although I don’t personally like him, he has been able to build a strong coalition that sometimes outthinks themselves. Really, folks…do you think you’re going to get any action on what you want with a “conservative” in the office (then VOTE BLUE, you stupid fucks!)? Cons: not very convincing in how he’s going to pay for all the progressive programs he wants to enact, his past socialist stance (only recently has he moved to “democratic socialist”), his non-Democrat status (you want to run for the leadership of the party but you discard them when they aren’t useful to you?), his age, his professorial tone…do I need to keep going?

Beto O' Rourke

Beto O’Rourke – Beto’s been losing some steam of late – that’s going to happen in a 25-person race. But he’s captured people much like Barack Obama did. That’s also part of his cons: he is inexperienced, he hasn’t provided any substance to what he stands for and it isn’t known how well he works outside of TX.

Going beyond these three and it gets a bit murky. Harris is a solid, middle of the road Democrat that could be a viable contender but would probably make a much better VP or Attorney General. Buttigieg is the “wild card” in the field, gaining ground right now but with little known about him (and seriously, his best elected office is mayor of a small Midwestern town? The biggest things South Bend is known for is being home to the University of Notre Dame, not exactly giving you foreign policy gravitas despite his ability to learn foreign languages). And, if I had to pick a sixth, I’d go with New Jersey Senator Cory Booker, who has just enough experience to be viable and to make him dangerous if he were to win.

The rest? They will be fortunate to have “former 2020 Democratic Presidential candidate” on their resumes when their obituaries are written, because that’s about the only impact they are going to have on the campaign. Klobuchar? Nobody wants Meryl Streep’s character from The Devil Wears Prada in the White House. Gabbard? Would be a Republican if she knew she’d get elected in Hawaii. Gillibrand? Three words…railroaded Al Franken. Warren? We tried Hillary Clinton in 2016…do we want Hillary 2.0? Hickenlooper? Castro? Messam? Inslee? Swalwell? WHO???

I know the purpose of the primary is to winnow the field to the best possible candidate. But the purpose of the primary is also to choose from a VIABLE field of candidates. Two-thirds of the 2020 Democratic field doesn’t have a chance in hell of earning the nomination or, better yet, defeating the embarrassment currently playing more golf than Tiger Woods. To be able to choose, you must be able to focus on who is actually worthy of the office.

There’s a long time to go in this race, however. Perhaps before the first debates begin in June, the pretenders will realize the futility of their efforts and back out of the race (but I’m not holding my breath on it). But it can be said that the Democratic Clown Car for 2020 is rapidly filling up and it doesn’t bode well for their overall program.

 

Advertisements

What’s My Problem? It Should Be Everyone’s Problem…

After one of my essays the other day, someone had the audacity to ask me what was my problem with the Republican Party. “Why don’t you go after the Democratic Party the way you go after the Republicans?” the person asked. I offered a quick, Facebook-friendly reply – which wasn’t enough for that person (it seldom is – Facebook is not an essay-friendly arena) – so I thought that I would take the time to fully enunciate what “my problem” is with the Republican Party, at least the way that it is constituted today. When I reach the end, I think that most people might recognize that it should be everyone’s problem.

I came of age in the 1970s, in the post-Watergate/post-Vietnam Era when we questioned everything that made up the government (in fact, it is why I still question it today). Whether it was the federal, state or local offices, none of them were given a break over the conditions in the United States. Republicans back then were not identified by their blind addiction to denial of social norms – abortion was an issue that was just beginning to bubble – but were more likely to be viewed on their business acumen, foreign policy expertise and respect for the military, things that everyone could get behind including their counterparts. Democrats at that time were looked at as the voice of the “people,” the party who would actually stand with those who needed the help the most when the times were the toughest, and protected them sometimes against those businesses that threatened them.

As the 1980s rolled around – and especially after the mixed results that were the presidencies of Richard Nixon (and, after his resignation, Gerald Ford) and Jimmy Carter – the two parties were still somewhat malleable in that they stood for different things but worked together for the improvement of the United States. The election of Ronald Reagan was something the country needed – a new rebirth, if you will – and it did serve to recharge the nation. I served in the United States Marine Corps during Reagan’s presidency and, while seeing him build the world’s greatest military, I also saw the Republican Party’s treatment of its fighting force in decrepit barracks and base housing, inadequate equipment, improper usage in military actions and other various areas of governance, including the denial of the AIDS epidemic and other societal ills.

Because of the success of Reagan, President George Bush – Bush I, as I like to call him – was a natural choice to continue. But Bush was different:  he was practical, he knew that you couldn’t just force the military anywhere for any reason (perhaps because of his days at the helm of the Central Intelligence Agency, he had a bit more “intelligence,” no pun intended) and he also knew you had to pay for the military. Thus, when he paid for the First Gulf War (or military action as “war” was never declared per se) by raising taxes, he was doomed as the 1990s began.

The true segmentation of the Republican and Democratic parties (and there is a segmentation, they are not “the same”) – and the reason for my look at one over the other – came about in the 1990s. When Bill Clinton became President in 1992, the nation took off, arguably because he worked with a Republican-led House of Representatives and Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich in 1994 and they maximized the “tech surge” of the mid-1990s. It was the second term of Clinton, however, that put the nail in the coffin for me.

Instead of being pleased with making the country work, the rising “neo-con” movement in the Republican Party – not happy to have a military that was sitting on the sidelines, wanting a bolder and more aggressive foreign policy and willing to do whatever it took to regain not only the power in Congress but also in the White House – seized on Clinton receiving a hummer from intern Monica Lewinsky and turned that into an impeachable offense (ever the opportunist Gingrich, rather than trying to staunch this wave, grabbed a surfboard and rode along with it). Fortunately, a more-rational Senate was able to stave off the slathering idiots that were the neo-con Republicans screaming for Clinton’s removal, but it would only be a momentary pause before the truly shitty schism would develop between the two.

The Republican neo-cons weren’t happy with skewering Democrats, they also ravaged their own. First they took down John McCain in 2000 with a bogus “black child” scam, getting their hand-picked puppet, George Bush (or Bush II), into the nomination, then they would turn the targeting on Al Gore as the election hinged on the state of Florida (the “swift-boating” of John Kerry four years later was just icing on the cake). Having seated 10 of the last 12 Supreme Court Justices, the Republicans were able to use the U. S. Supreme Court to shut down any further review of Florida’s recount in 2000, with 538 voters being the determining factor in Bush’s 2000 Electoral College win (Gore won the popular vote) over Gore.

Once back in power – and with the attacks of 9/11 – the Republican neo-con movement was given the proverbial golden chalice of opportunity to sweepingly affect the United States and they took full advantage of it. They enacted the Patriot Act of 2001 – with a reluctant Democratic Senate coming along (only Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold, a Democrat, voted against it) – arguably the worst piece of legislation in the history of the country. They started first an air campaign against the alleged (true) mastermind behind 9/11, al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, in Afghanistan, but then for some inexplicable reason transferred most of their attention to an air and ground invasion of Iraq and its dictator Saddam Hussein, in essence starting a two-front war.

While making these mistakes, they also spent money like drunken sailors on shore leave. Instead of maintaining steady tax rates, the neo-cons lowered taxes – apparently thinking that there would be a magical money tree that would just drop $100 bills from the sky – while pushing an extreme anti-everything social policy that impeded on the rights on every person that isn’t a white male in the U. S. If that wasn’t enough, then the fiscal collapse of 2008 occurred – and the resulting “bank bailout” that was started by President Bush – before President Barack Obama came to office.

Now, in my entire existence, the Congress may not have agreed with the President, but they at the minimum did their job and attempted to work with the President. They passed bills, put them to the President and it was up to him as to whether he wanted to enact them. They WORKED with the President and/or his personnel. From the start of the Obama Presidency, however – and epitomized by now-Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s infamous “our job” speech (“Our job is to ensure that the man in the White House is a one-term President”) – the Republicans have done exactly NOTHING to further the cause of the United States (and please don’t try to say the 60 or so votes to end the Affordable Care Act constitutes “action”).

Where I come from – my core beliefs – is that government works the best when it does keep its nose out of the lives of its citizens. There come moments in a nation’s history, however, when it does require the “voice of reason” to step in and make a determination. Slavery, the right of women to vote, civil rights, abortion, equal protection for women and LGBT persons…these are all moments when the federal government has to step in and say, as a whole for the nation, that there is one rule for one nation. Through this method, one area of the nation cannot inflict its ignorance, giving the country a black eye over something that should be settled (as Alabama recently did over the gay marriage issue).

With these issues, the Republican Party seldom seems to be on the right side (slavery seems to be one of those rare occasions). Rather than embracing the rights of people, the GOP seems to kowtow to a small sect (and I use that term in its perfect religious intentions) of people who consistently chop off their leaders’ arms for not trying to be more accepting of people DIFFERENT THAN THEM.

I don’t want to see leaders blaming people for being disadvantaged or poor, I want to see those leaders attempt to help those people (a great program in North Carolina, started by a Republican, encouraged people on public assistance into a two-year program that eventually saw those people get off the dole). I want to see schools given every tool available for the children rather than hear politicians cry about the tax expenditure (education is the only way to ensure that we improve as a country) of simply providing textbooks. I want to see leaders who try to improve life for everyone rather than improve it for a few. I want to see intelligence praised instead of derided, as many in the GOP do when it comes to science.

As to the military (and as a veteran), I would like to see our troops used less rather than more. I’d prefer to see them used only as a TRUE last resort instead of as a “peacekeeping” force (as they have been since World War II). And, if you’re going to use the military, supply them with the equipment they need, pay them well, take care of their families and, when they come home, take care of the veterans and their medical conditions. The Republicans who say that they cannot take care of veterans – calling it an “entitlement” – shouldn’t ever darken the door of Congress again.

This means you have to have money for everything. Paying for a strong military, infrastructure, improvements overall for people’s daily lives, business and education improvements…it all takes money. While it can be streamlined, it also needs funding to function. Taxation for government is a necessary evil and denying that increase in revenue is a death sentence to being a third world country.

This isn’t to say all Republicans are evil, just as it isn’t to say that all Democrats are saints. But, when the scales are weighed, I see one side doing more for people and the military overall and it certainly isn’t the one that is represented by the heavier animal. I’m always open for presentation of evidence to the contrary but, for the Republican Party, that evidence is rather sparse.

Is that answer good enough?